The National Art Collection is not infested with termites
Dear Editor, In my estimation, cartoonist Paul Harris, in stepping into the large shoes of his father before him, Hawley Harris, has ably carried on the lofty standards of acute perception of events and remarkable extrapolation that were set for him –that is, until I saw his rendition last Monday, poking fun at something as highly regarded over the years as the National Art Gallery. Neither is his offering an example of black humour, which is a distinct way of articulating a situation, given that cartoons are in and of themselves a specialised art form.
Indeed the style of the Harrises is to extrapolate wit, usually from factual events; thus, to portray Castellani House, the building that houses the National Art Collection, as termite infested, to the extent that persons would be immediately attacked by these insects upon entering, is not a laughing matter, as it is not remotely factual!
For the record, I repeat: the National Art Collection is not infested with termites! For two years now, this supposed fact has flourished with all the hardy virulence of bad news, rumour and lies. For lie it is, a falsehood contained in a barely one-page and supposedly confidential report by a gallery staff member, submitted, in my absence on leave, to the then Minister of Culture and the gallery’s Management Committee members, at the former’s request.
Though supposedly confidential, the contents of this document then informed the complaints of a prominent artist, exhibiting in the gallery at the time, that a painting of hers had been left ‘propped up for four years’, to be destroyed by termites. Her complaints were published in a lengthy letter in the Sunday Stabroek in May 2014, which in turn was backed up, word for word, by a thundering editorial in the Stabroek News the following week; a startling seal of verification from a highly esteemed newspaper.
As the gallery’s director reading this while on leave, and knowing that such a ridiculous scenario had not occurred, this editorial, being the voice of the newspaper, confirmed for me that something not only wrong, but deliberate and sinister, had taken place at the gallery in my absence. My subsequent receipt of this report, when I returned to work in July 2014, then fully confirmed this.
But even as I questioned the staff member and began to draft a report on this matter, family illness and death occurred, followed by an escalation of bizarre and unpleasant events targeting me at the gallery. All of this left me no time to deal with submitting a report about staff dishonesty or with correcting the public record.
Mr Harris, however, rather like the mysteriously sudden revival of this issue in the government newspaper, the Sunday Chronicle, a few weeks ago, has also decided, somehow out of the blue, to restate what appears to be the Stabroek News editorial stance, that wood ants (termites) flourish in the National Gallery building. I therefore have to thank him for providing me the overdue necessity of correcting the public record first indulged in by your newspaper in May 2014 and suddenly revived, by not one, but two media houses, more than two years after this misleading news item had featured in the press.
Then as now, experienced editors and journalists have gone to press, without first seeking comments or alternative views ‒ in the interest of balanced and fair reporting to portray the truth ‒ from those who, whether their names or positions are mentioned or not, are clearly recognized as being targeted. The presentation of balanced views, rather than the promotion of biased opinion, is how
I believe most professional journalists would wish to do their jobs.
Having said that, let me once again state, as I did two years ago in the Stabroek News and two weeks ago in the Sunday Chronicle, that whatever damage may have occurred to our artworks in storage at the gallery has come not from wood ants, but from the effects of woodworm, caused by a wood-boring beetle which infects trees. Wood can therefore be cut, and passed through a sawmill into a lumberyard, with the hardy insect larva intact, even as it is bought for multiple uses, including the making of painting frames and stretchers. These woods can show damage quickly or slowly, depending on the quality of the wood infected, and including silverballi wood, which the complaining artist had with seeming pride mentioned as being used for her frames and stretchers – and which comes in at least six sub-species, of varying resistance to insect damage and decay.
Treatment for this damage has always been cleaning and thorough spraying, which stabilizes and stops the infestation, and which gallery staff have reported on and effected over the years; effected in fact by the staff member who wrote the false report, one of whose duties it has been to make accurate reports of insect damage to me, and to carry out or supervise the necessary spraying.
What many of these works have further needed was the systematic replacement of damaged frames, something reversible and achieved by a technical but relatively uncomplicated process. The gallery has however been severely hampered, not simply by inadequate storage, but by the lack of adequate examination and workroom space. I had requested this as long ago as 2001, along with more storage space for a growing collection. More space would in particular have allowed us to execute necessary and ongoing, routine maintenance and care of the collection, as well as attention to any works coming into the gallery for whatever purpose.
The plans for such a facility however carried a projected cost of $18 million, which the Government of Guyana simply did not have at the time. Urged to make the best of our existing facilities, we resorted to the creative use of the limited space, while delays over the years in carrying out less ambitious improvements did not help. We were also further hindered by other, important works on the premises, which have at times prevented free and secure access to these spaces as structures, related to other government projects, have been put in place.
This state of affairs, and measures to correct our situation, have been documented and are thus in the records at Castellani House, having been proposed, and otherwise reported on, to the Management Committee of the gallery, and elsewhere to government administration. These records and, I believe, the conscience, and memory, of some members of the Management Committee, would confirm this.
Finally, I close with a brief mention of the painful irony, for me, of the coverage of the Walter Roth Museum (WRM), representing as it does a substantial part of the impressive legacy of Dr Denis Williams, polymath, artist, archaeologist, novelist and administrator, for many years, of the National Collection of Art.
The recent correspondence in the Stabroek News from the museum’s very able long-term administrator, Jennifer Wishart, referring in passing to previous damage and destruction of parts of the WRM collection, reminds me that, rather like Castellani House, a museum is not just a very precious ‘collection’ , but also an institution, set up not only to ‘display’ (SN editorial of 14th last refers), but compelled to manage and promote that collection in numerous ways, via functions and facilities supporting the many roles that the leadership and staff of that institution have to perform. These are all necessary for the preservation and perpetuation of such a museum’s collection and its lasting value as an institution. Despite Dr Williams’ widely recognized and highly regarded achievements, the work of his institution has been challenged by those needs, as indicated by Ms Wishart’s brief but eloquent letter.
The record of the National Gallery is necessarily very different from the WRM. By its very nature it is geared in great part to numerous public events promoting the works of Guyanese artists, in Guyana and abroad, and also, like many national galleries elsewhere, a promotion of the related arts, as well as the promotion of the culture and arts of other countries, as we have done through numerous collaborations with many foreign missions in Guyana.
Despite this known and documented record, incidentally greatly supported over the years by Stabroek News reportage, events of the past two years have meant that many urgent, incomplete projects and other matters have been suspended in limbo, for want of knowledgeable action and execution, and which, within their wider context, require advice to, and attention and decision-making from, the Government of Guyana.
Such attention may ensure the further building of lasting Guyanese institutions. It would be wonderful to know that our institutions also receive the informed support of an engaged press corps for this important aspect of nation building.
Yours faithfully, Elfrieda Bissember